Emails Show How Clinton Aides Stage-Managed Her Keystone Shift

The Clinton campaign emails that were made public by WikiLeaks on Monday show the degree to which Hillary Clinton’s aides stage-managed her policy announcements, and the extent of their anxiety as they tried to explain her changed positions on certain issues. The following exchange reflects one example: her shift on the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton had said that the administration was “inclined” to approve it, but that a final decision would have to wait until an analysis of its impact was complete. As a candidate, she had avoided a stance, saying that she did not want to take a position before President Obama did. But as she faced increasing pressure from the left, her aides discussed how she could make her opposition to Keystone known.

August 2015

In one email exchange, dated Aug. 7, Dan Schwerin, who is now Mrs. Clinton’s director of speech writing, offered guidance on how the campaign could explain her change in position.

Mr. Schwerin wrote in an email to Cheryl D. Mills, a longtime Clinton adviser: “We are trying to find a good way to leak her opposition to the pipeline without her having to actually say it and give up her principled stand about not second-guessing the president in public.”

In the same email chain, Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, suggested that Mrs. Clinton should announce her opposition to Keystone the next Monday, to take the media attention away from the crisis of the moment, the calls for her to apologize for her use of a private email server: “We could even have her come out against Keystone on Monday as well (not sure where that stands), which will solicit criticism but that might help distract from emails.”

September 2015

A month later, it looked as though Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle had decided to reveal her position on the pipeline in an opinion article.

But on Sept. 7, the day the draft of the article circulated, Joel Benenson of Benenson Strategy Group complained about it: “Right now you don’t have any sound bite that elevates her position and all that will get picked up is that she’s opposed to Keystone,” he said. “I’m worried that if we don’t have something like that we are light on her core values and beliefs on this issue and we are missing those she risks looking very political, especially on this.”

On Sept. 8, Brian Fallon, Mrs. Clinton’s press secretary, also fretted that the op-ed on Keystone would be taken as cynical political maneuvering and “inspire loud cries of hypocrisy from reporters.”

“Given that we just offered an apology on emails that some reporters think happened ‘on a dime’ after months of resistance, do we worry that publishing an op-ed that leans this aggressively into our newfound position on Keystone will be greeted cynically and perhaps as part of some manufactured attempt to project sincerity?”

He suggested leaking the news of her changed position after a meeting with labor leaders: “That would seem like a private comment that she didn’t intend to become public. It might achieve the same effect of getting her on the record on this issue, but with less perception that she is putting a finger to the wind.”

Jim Margolis, a political consultant, agreed and asked if the idea of leaking the news was feasible: “This has been bothering me as well. We repeatedly said we couldn’t do this and then launch an op-ed without much explanation. Is Brian’s suggestion possible?”

In the end, Mrs. Clinton announced her opposition to the pipeline on Sept. 22 at a community meeting in Des Moines, according to CNN: “I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is — a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change. Therefore, I oppose it.”